Figured I would start some off-season mayhem on this board.
Supreme Court Overturns Precedent In Property Rights Case. A Sign Of Things To Come? https://n.pr/2L7VFdk
Issues presented in the article:
1) SCOTUS is now going to start overturning precedence
2). Baring property owners from going to federal court until their claims had been denied in state court
3). The decision may have particular effects in cities and coastal areas that have strict regulations for development.. This is an obvious reference to the California Coastal Commission (CCC) which has often been hammered in federal court.
Looking at number 2 first, as a former practicing attorney I have to agree with the gravamen of the decision against a practice complained about by Roberts. The California agencies I represented often took "pre-judgement" possession of the property and then had all the leverage in the world to negotiate lower awards as the state court process dragged forward with a rather pro-government bias (it is not lost on the judges who signs their paychecks and they are appointed or elevated by a Governor who is pressing the government projects that involve takings), and that the only redress for the former property owner is trying to get before SCOTUS - good luck. Abusive process, that is constantly used by almost every state. That said, there are some practicalities that make pre-judgement possession necessary, like you can't hold up an important government project that serves a valuable purpose (using a California example relevant today, let's say one for fire suppression), because you can't agree on compensation. What Roberts is saving is why have this carve out when it comes to property rights if your federal rights are violated - you should have the same access to federal courts as everyone else. In the case of pre-judgment possession, this means a faster case in a fairer forum according the majority.
But not all property cases are about this abuse. The case is question was a government wanting public access over someone's property (to a cemetery), thereby destroying some value of the property. In fact, in one of the several slap downs of the CCC, SCOTUS said you can't do this without compensation called the Nollan decision (the CCC imposed a condition for the Nollans to get a permit to remodel their house that they allow public access to the beach through their property). The strange thing is this case was the town which was imposing access obviously got some legal advise and had agreed not to demand access. That is right, the government surrendered to the property owner well before the case hit SCOTUS.
This gets us to issue 1, overturning previous precedence. SCOTUS obviously was looking at the "abuses" of local government and what the majority considered a biased process. In particular, liberal government entities like the CCC are thought to trample private property rights and the article is correct that the federal courts (in SoCal at least, even "liberal" judges make nasty comments in decisions about the CCC). So the majority said we are going to federalize local land use decisions, and we overturning precedence because we think it is an abusive situation. \We don't even care that the government pulled back, and did not abuse anyone in this case.
Then there is issue 3. This has a lot of implications since beach cities in particular impose a myriad of regulations to protect what they consider their desire to remain the nature of the city. We are not talking about simply access issues which generally are an obvious taking. For example, Laguna Beach in its wisdom, often mandates which color paint a resident improving their house must use on the outside of their house. That is extreme, as there are a lot of regulations, like limiting house sizes or zoning about no loud uses, that really speak to living together as a community to reduce density or simply quality of life. Most regulation is something most of us can live with for the greater good.
The Nollan Court specified that a "close nexus" must be shown between the regulatory condition imposed and the development impacts of concern, and that the regulatory action must "substantially advance legitimate state interests". Although the case appears to deal primarily with takings, the principles are applied to the exaction (regulations are typically viewed as exactions since you can't do (or must do) something with your property) and impact-fees as well (which is a different discussion). The Court struck down California's policy of "anything goes" for exaction requirements, and created the rational-nexus standard. So far so good. And sure, maybe a federal judge may be less biased against the local homeowner than a local judge who may work for the entity being sued (e.g., the county). But guy hearing the case in a federal court may not even be in your state and appreciate the significance of the issue being debated. Consider an Arizona 9th circuit judge sitting en banc listening to a CCC case. Where SCOTUS is going with this decision is that there no longer is local rule in deciding what local regulation passes muster. This is somewhat bizarre for conservatives on SCOTUS who tout state and local rights under the 10th amendment. The term "states' rights" has often been considered a wedge issue because of its use in opposition to federal minority rights (especially desegregation cases), but it is a legitimate argument often used by local governments including California (and was used by the SCOTUS minority in this case), when the believe the federal government is exceeding its jurisdiction.
I expect this case will lead to many federal challenges of local government regulations in California and else where.
Supreme Court Overturns Precedent In Property Rights Case. A Sign Of Things To Come? https://n.pr/2L7VFdk
Issues presented in the article:
1) SCOTUS is now going to start overturning precedence
2). Baring property owners from going to federal court until their claims had been denied in state court
3). The decision may have particular effects in cities and coastal areas that have strict regulations for development.. This is an obvious reference to the California Coastal Commission (CCC) which has often been hammered in federal court.
Looking at number 2 first, as a former practicing attorney I have to agree with the gravamen of the decision against a practice complained about by Roberts. The California agencies I represented often took "pre-judgement" possession of the property and then had all the leverage in the world to negotiate lower awards as the state court process dragged forward with a rather pro-government bias (it is not lost on the judges who signs their paychecks and they are appointed or elevated by a Governor who is pressing the government projects that involve takings), and that the only redress for the former property owner is trying to get before SCOTUS - good luck. Abusive process, that is constantly used by almost every state. That said, there are some practicalities that make pre-judgement possession necessary, like you can't hold up an important government project that serves a valuable purpose (using a California example relevant today, let's say one for fire suppression), because you can't agree on compensation. What Roberts is saving is why have this carve out when it comes to property rights if your federal rights are violated - you should have the same access to federal courts as everyone else. In the case of pre-judgment possession, this means a faster case in a fairer forum according the majority.
But not all property cases are about this abuse. The case is question was a government wanting public access over someone's property (to a cemetery), thereby destroying some value of the property. In fact, in one of the several slap downs of the CCC, SCOTUS said you can't do this without compensation called the Nollan decision (the CCC imposed a condition for the Nollans to get a permit to remodel their house that they allow public access to the beach through their property). The strange thing is this case was the town which was imposing access obviously got some legal advise and had agreed not to demand access. That is right, the government surrendered to the property owner well before the case hit SCOTUS.
This gets us to issue 1, overturning previous precedence. SCOTUS obviously was looking at the "abuses" of local government and what the majority considered a biased process. In particular, liberal government entities like the CCC are thought to trample private property rights and the article is correct that the federal courts (in SoCal at least, even "liberal" judges make nasty comments in decisions about the CCC). So the majority said we are going to federalize local land use decisions, and we overturning precedence because we think it is an abusive situation. \We don't even care that the government pulled back, and did not abuse anyone in this case.
Then there is issue 3. This has a lot of implications since beach cities in particular impose a myriad of regulations to protect what they consider their desire to remain the nature of the city. We are not talking about simply access issues which generally are an obvious taking. For example, Laguna Beach in its wisdom, often mandates which color paint a resident improving their house must use on the outside of their house. That is extreme, as there are a lot of regulations, like limiting house sizes or zoning about no loud uses, that really speak to living together as a community to reduce density or simply quality of life. Most regulation is something most of us can live with for the greater good.
The Nollan Court specified that a "close nexus" must be shown between the regulatory condition imposed and the development impacts of concern, and that the regulatory action must "substantially advance legitimate state interests". Although the case appears to deal primarily with takings, the principles are applied to the exaction (regulations are typically viewed as exactions since you can't do (or must do) something with your property) and impact-fees as well (which is a different discussion). The Court struck down California's policy of "anything goes" for exaction requirements, and created the rational-nexus standard. So far so good. And sure, maybe a federal judge may be less biased against the local homeowner than a local judge who may work for the entity being sued (e.g., the county). But guy hearing the case in a federal court may not even be in your state and appreciate the significance of the issue being debated. Consider an Arizona 9th circuit judge sitting en banc listening to a CCC case. Where SCOTUS is going with this decision is that there no longer is local rule in deciding what local regulation passes muster. This is somewhat bizarre for conservatives on SCOTUS who tout state and local rights under the 10th amendment. The term "states' rights" has often been considered a wedge issue because of its use in opposition to federal minority rights (especially desegregation cases), but it is a legitimate argument often used by local governments including California (and was used by the SCOTUS minority in this case), when the believe the federal government is exceeding its jurisdiction.
I expect this case will lead to many federal challenges of local government regulations in California and else where.
